Uber Will 'Shut Down' in California If It Must Classify Drivers as Employees 📦

145    12 Aug 2020 20:40 by u/None

In a Wednesday morning interview with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said Uber would likely shut down temporarily if it failed to appeal a recent ruling requiring immediate reclassification of its drivers as full-time employees. Currently, Uber’s business model relies on classifying drivers as “independent contractors” who do not enjoy the benefits or stability that come with employment. "We think the ruling was unfortunate. We respect, obviously, the law and the court and the judge," Khosrowshahi said. "If the court doesn’t reconsider, then in California, it’s hard to believe we’ll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly, so I think Uber will shut down for a while."

39 comments

37 u/None [OP] 12 Aug 2020 22:12
Why don’t they move out of California entirely and make a point out of it? Plenty of people in other states love the freedom of being a private contractor.
11 u/IneptAudienceSupport 13 Aug 2020 03:55
I think that maybe "making a point" is less important than "making money". They'll see if they can find a way to be profitable under the new rules before throwing in the towel, and *maybe* might consider operating at a small loss in areas with enough out-of-state visitors who they don't want searching for alternatives.
25 u/theonlygoodcommie 12 Aug 2020 23:09
california just wants to be a third world country
4 u/AldebaranIII 13 Aug 2020 09:37
Drivers are operating at a loss the depreciation on the vehicles doesn't even keep up with the low rates after Ubers gigantic cut. It's unsustainable and takes advantage of desperate people out of work.
4 u/StaffSaber 13 Aug 2020 12:16
Then those who choose to drive for Uber should find another means of work or renegotiate their contract. The government does not need to be involved. Let a shitty business fail on its own. If you try to put strict controls over business like this, then you may hurt countless others who AREN'T shitty.
1 u/AldebaranIII 13 Aug 2020 15:01
Most HAD another line of work, they worked for or legally owned cabs and Uber was allowed to ignore the laws the cabs were still restrained under.
3 u/StaffSaber 13 Aug 2020 17:05
I would argue that those cabs didn't need to be so strictly regulated either. Strict regulations kill business and disincentivize innovation.
1 u/basedchad 21 Aug 2020 06:21
In most cases, the cab owners and cab companies lobbied for (and got) protections from market competition from the government
1 u/AldebaranIII 21 Aug 2020 07:13
False. Uber paid off those in charge and the laws governing cabs such as medallion rates and licensing was not enforced on Uber. They ignored the laws and therefore operated at cut rates while cabs HAD to charge a fixed rate by LAW.
1 u/basedchad 21 Aug 2020 07:25
Decades ago, taxi companies lobbied for those protections (medallions and licensing) that necessarily limited competition in the taxi market. Previously, in the decade following the mass introduction and production of the car, there was no limit on taxi businesses, and anyone with a car could operate as a taxi, and anyone could start a taxi company. Its good that Uber freed themselves from the taxicab monopoly by paying off those in charge - that's the only way they get to reclaim their rights and freedom. We get the benefits of their innovation and forward-thinking every time we take a nice, cheap, quick and convenient Uber rather than an expensive taxicab that has no incentive to treat the customer right.
0 u/AldebaranIII 21 Aug 2020 19:25
Dude. I owned and drove cabs for many years. Medallions and licensing started in NY after the taxi wars. Regardless they were restrictive laws and rules (including pricing) that Taxis MUST follow or risk fines and closure while Uber got to do literally whatever it wanted however it wanted, and the law enforcers profited by pay offs while the people suffered because as soon as the cabs folded the Uber rates went up and the money rather than staying locally went to silicon valley California.
0 u/basedchad 22 Aug 2020 00:50
>Dude. I owned and drove cabs for many years. Medallions and licensing started in NY after the taxi wars. Regardless they were restrictive laws and rules (including pricing) that Taxis MUST follow or risk fines and closure Your taxi is owned by taxicab company that lobbied for these rules. Businesses don't hate restrictive regulations if those rules monopolize their industry and put their competitors out of business. >while Uber got to do literally whatever it wanted however it wanted, and the law enforcers profited by pay offs Uber bought themselves out of freedom - there's nothing wrong with this. >while the people suffered because as soon as the cabs folded the Uber rates went up and the money rather than staying locally went to silicon valley California. That's not Uber's fault, that's the fault of the rules and regulations placed by city and state governments on taxis. Consumers spend money on what they choose - and they clearly chose Uber over taxis. City and state governments deserve to lose money that could be spent locally because they were the ones that made their local economies noncompetitive. In this case, it's good that Silicon valley California gets this money and not the local economies. For some reason, you absolutely despise Uber for competing in a market economy, and winning, rather than hating the local and state governmental regulations that made the taxicab businesses, among others, noncompetitive. It seems like you're more anti-Uber, anti-Silicon valley, and trying to find whatever excuse to 'punish' them. You approve of Uber getting regulated, in the name of "fairness", but don't even want to consider the possibility of deregulating the entire industry, and allowing free market competition, which would not only restore fairness, but also benefit consumers in both the short and long terms.
2 u/theonlygoodcommie 13 Aug 2020 16:26
How fucking thick skulled are you communists ? > takes advantage of desperate people out of work. Are you offering them a better job? Uber offers the drivers an option, and offering people options is never taking advantage of them. Stealing from people and calling it taxes is taking advantage. Obviously, they would only take the offer if there was nothing better, and your whiny ass isnt offering anything.
-1 u/AldebaranIII 13 Aug 2020 16:37
Uber TOOK their jobs most were taxi drivers and owners who were complying with medallion LAW therefore couldnt even COMPETE, and now look instead of the money staying local it goes to the COMMUNISTS in SILICON VALLEY, the communist MEDIA aided and abetted all this by not reporting how unfair it was and presenting Uber as the best thing since sliced bread.
2 u/theonlygoodcommie 13 Aug 2020 17:00
> Uber TOOK their jobs most were taxi drivers and owners who were complying with medallion So what? Those jobs should not have ever existed in the first place. And thats why taxis were so bad, and it was a shit model, protected by government. Medallion law needs to die > presenting Uber as the best thing since sliced bread. Its not uber in specific. The whole concept of their business model is under attack by commies.
-1 u/AldebaranIII 13 Aug 2020 17:49
Uber ARE commies , silicon valley liberal commies that ignore laws
2 u/theonlygoodcommie 13 Aug 2020 22:16
> Uber ARE commies , silicon valley liberal commies that ignore laws ignoring laws doesnt make you a commie, if those are commie laws.
21 u/IneptAudienceSupport 12 Aug 2020 22:55
So laws intended to ban gig work might end up banning things that work *because they're gig work*, rather than making them magically work under an old style wage-serf model?
10 u/ColumbusJewBlackets 13 Aug 2020 02:47
So does this mean EBay has to provide me with health insurance and benefits since we basically have the same arrangement as drivers do with Uber?
4 u/SmallTimeTrader 13 Aug 2020 02:42
God forbid workers should have the freedom to sell their labor on the market in whatever way they deem most beneficial to them. No, obviously government must specify the terms by which the people are allowed to work. For their own good, of course.
3 u/warhawktwofour 13 Aug 2020 00:07
So no more contractors?
1 u/A_Solo_Tripper 12 Aug 2020 20:42
Someone else will fill in the gap.. peace.
1 u/brikabrak 22 Jan 2021 22:52
This is so goofy. They already got their way through California law in the last election so they could further abuse their EMPLOYEES. Not to mention, California's feeble attempt to fix their mess by making contractors in CA mandatory employees, fucking over every contractor in the state and making it so much harder to find work because companies now outsource jobs.